United States v. Rafael Miranda

*386 OPINION

Appellant was charged with seven counts of embezzlement of federally insured funds from the Main Office of the Imperial Bank in Los Angeles, California. Trial before a jury resulted in conviction on all seven counts. Several trial errors are alleged to have deprived appellant of a fair trial. We agree that two of the alleged errors, in combination, were of sufficient .gravity to require reversal.

Appellant was employed by the Imperial Bank from April 1972 to January 1973 as a home loan payment collector in the bank’s mortgage department. One of appellant’s responsibilities was the acceptance of money from homeowners who came directly to the bank to make loan payments. Appellant was convicted of embezzling seven of these deposits.

Payments were often made in cash, which was stored in a locked cabinet overnight. On the next business day, the cash would be converted to cashier’s checks which were then delivered by appellant to the cashier of the bank. The cashier would prepare a cash card to be processed through the bank’s computer, crediting the appropriate customer’s account. Customers were given receipts for their cash payments.

The computer automatically notified…

(dissenting):

I dissent. I find harmless error on the part of the trial judge, in view of the manner in which the case was tried; the objections made and not made by defense counsel; and the evidence produced at the trial.

510 F.2d 385 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Rafael MIRANDA, Appellant. No. 73--3552. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Jan. 13, 1975. Martha Goldin, Saltzman & Goldin, Hollywood, Cal., for appellant. William D. Keller, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before BARNES and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and ENRIGHT, District Judge. * OPINION ENRIGHT, District Judge: Appellant was charged with seven counts of embezzlement of federally insured funds from the Main Office of the Imperial Bank in Los Angeles, California. Trial before a jury resulted in conviction on all seven counts. Several trial errors are alleged to have deprived appellant of a fair trial. We agree that two of the alleged errors, in combination, were of sufficient gravity to require reversal. Appellant was employed by the Imperial Bank from April 1972 to January 1973 as a home loan payment collector in the bank's mortgage department. One of appellant's responsibilities was the acceptance of money from homeowners who came directly to the bank to make loan payments. Appellant was convicted of embezzling seven of these deposits. Payments were often made in cash, which was stored in a…